Standing Committee A

[Mr. Jonathan Sayeed in the Chair]

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 83, in page 20, line 6, leave out 
`such information of a particular description' and insert `specific aspects contained therein'.—[Mr. Bercow.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Jonathan Sayeed: I remind hon. Members that with this we are considering the following amendments: No. 84, in page 20, line 8, after `the', insert `specific'.
 No. 85, in page 20, line 10, after first `the', insert `specific'. 
 No. 86, in page 20, line 11, after `disclosed', insert `to interested parties'.

Andrew Miller: I want to respond to the observations made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). First, in my 50-odd years of life—

Linda Gilroy: On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. Several members of the public are waiting to get into the Committee Room, but the door is locked.

Jonathan Sayeed: That is a genuine point of order.

Andrew Miller: Rare as it is, a genuine point order. I have been insulted by experts during my life, so the trivial observations of the hon. Member for Buckingham while trying to be rude—

John Bercow: I was not trying to be rude; I was being rude.

Andrew Miller: That just proves my point that there is no civility on the Opposition Benches.
 If the hon. Member for Buckingham had read the data protection legislation, he would understand that his amendments are pointless. Any data holder who is required to make data available to a third party under a statute, or who chooses to make it available to a third party, is required to advise the data subjects of that fact when the data is collected. Therefore, the amendments, in so far as they affect data protection legislation, would be irrelevant to the Bill.

John Bercow: The answer is simple. The clause lacks specificity, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is patently unaware, or, even, woefully ignorant. Were he aware of the deficiency of the clause, he would not object to the propriety or wisdom of tabling the amendment. He took two or three minutes to make a bad point, to which I have tried to respond. Perhaps the Committee can now proceed to a more constructive consideration.

Charles Clarke: I am tempted to comment on the length of time taken by some Committee members to make exceptionally bad points, especially on Tuesday. However, it would not be appropriate to descend to the gutter in such a way.
 I want to make a couple of preliminary points. First, a remark—I do not think that it was meant offensively—was uttered, although I may be mistaken, by the hon. Member for Buckingham. That comment was that the Secretary of State's issuing of a certificate, in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, was a relatively formal, simple or straightforward process. In fact, it is a serious document, on which the Secretary of State receives substantial and considered legal advice, which he considers carefully before deciding whether it is appropriate to put his certificate on a Bill. It is not a trivial matter; I would be surprised if, during the next 10 years, the House did not consider Bills for which such a certificate had not been signed. It has not arisen so far, but it is a considered and important matter. 
 Secondly, I want to make two points in relation to the debate about regulations, although I do not want to return to it in great detail. I have occasionally felt while watching Government in action that there is some substance in the suggestion that, sometimes, draft regulations could be made available earlier for the Committee's consideration, and I have always tried to ensure that that happens. However, there are also circumstances—this is one such circumstance, as I shall point out—in which it is not possible to make draft regulations available because one foresees events in the future that will create a different set of circumstances for the draft regulations. 
 My final preliminary point is that data protection is a serious matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, in his usual cogent and considered way, described correctly the way in which data protection and data sharing is dealt with.

John Bercow: The point is the specificity of the clause.

Charles Clarke: No, he put the point correctly. However—this is an important issue—how data is shared across Government and between Government and the private sector using an insurance database is difficult and complex. As the Committee is aware, the performance and innovation unit and the Cabinet Office, under the ministerial sponsorship of my noble Friend Lord Falconer, are working so that we can come to a series of conclusions about how to deal with such matters.
 With your permission, Mr. Sayeed, I should like to raise some points on clause 35. Important matters have been raised and I should like to place on record what the clause seeks to achieve. It enables the police to have bulk access to a motor insurance industry database, which will improve their ability to identify—and take appropriate action against—people who drive without insurance. 
 I was grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). Driving without insurance is a big problem that needs to be tackled more effectively. In 1998, there were 254,951 convictions for driving while uninsured—a substantial number. The Association of British Insurers estimates that at least 1 million people drive while uninsured—about 5 per cent. of drivers. Driving while uninsured is a crime in itself, but may be associated with vehicle theft and other forms of criminal activity.

Michael Fabricant: While we have this moment of agreement between us—and I trust that it will be more than a moment—does the Minister agree that driving while uninsured is also a crime against the victims of road accidents, who are often unable to get full compensation?

Charles Clarke: That is precisely correct. It often causes tragedy and hurt to victims. That is one reason why we give high priority to attacking that part of the problem. The Motor Insurers Bureau meets the cost of accidents suffered by victims of uninsured drivers; clearly, that does not deal with the trauma of which the hon. Gentleman spoke. In the year 2000, the levy on insurance companies towards that end was expected to be about £215 million. In addition, the costs borne by insurance companies directly were thought to be at least as much again. Both sums are passed on to policyholders in the form of higher premiums, ranging on average from £15 to £20 per policyholder. That is substantial.
 Giving the police bulk access to the motor insurance database will enable them to identify uninsured vehicles more easily and check the insurance status of the drivers. When records show that they have insurance, motorists will be spared the inconvenience of having to produce the necessary documentation at a police station. The police need bulk access to the database because the information is expected to be available to them at the roadside from July 2001, but access will be limited to individual inquiries. Bulk access will enable the police proactively to identify uninsured vehicles and drivers. That is why the proposal has the full support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of British Insurers, the AA, the RAC Foundation and the Motorists Forum. It is widely supported by the industry and by motorists' organisations, for the reasons that I have set out. 
 It is intended that the police will have bulk access after January 2003—I hesitate to provoke the hon. Member for Buckingham yet again—when the fourth European Union motor insurance directive is implemented. The insurance database will contain a complete record of all insured vehicles and drivers. The database will hold all the information found on the insurance certificate, together with the address of the policyholder and information about additional drivers.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Clarke: I will just complete my presentation and then give way. The database will be matched against the DVLA vehicles register held on the police national computer to produce a subset of data that will consist of a list of registered, but uninsured, vehicles and can be used in conjunction with automatic number plate recognition systems. The technology is developing—it was first used to deal with terrorists potentially threatening buildings in the City of London—to detect uninsured vehicles and drivers.
 Mr. Bercow: Has the final form of the European directive to which the Minister referred been determined in respect of its transposition into United Kingdom law? If so, can he tell the Committee the extent of the consultation and say whether the principal features of that process were published?

Charles Clarke: I cannot answer that question off the top of my head. I should have prepared myself for that question, in the knowledge that anything with the initials EU would send the hon. Gentleman into a minor frenzy. I apologise for not doing so. However, as I am writing to members of the Committee about the directive that we discussed this morning, I shall enclose with it a copy of the directive under discussion now and set out the consultation process.

John Bercow: I appreciate the good-natured reply of the hon. Gentleman, but he was anxious this morning to have some matters on the record and other matters removed from it. I therefore take the opportunity to confirm what any observer would detect, which is that I am not in a frenzy—minor or otherwise—about the matter. The directive might have merits; I was simply anxious to know the final form of the consultation. I am a model of passivity.

Charles Clarke: I shall certainly give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks. Behind his placid exterior, it sometimes difficult to detect what degree of frenzy is taking place.
 Specific mention was made of the compatibility of the provision with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. It is compatible and the Home Secretary made a statement to that effect under section 19(1)(a) of the Act. I reinforce what I said earlier; there is a considered statement and it is not something that comes automatically. While the provision authorises the disclosure of personal data such that article 8 is engaged, article 8(2) of the European convention on human rights permits interferences with the right to privacy when, as here, it is necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime or the protection of the rights or freedoms of others; that is the essential issue at stake. 
 The provision is a proportionate measure to achieve the crime prevention objective. Information that is subject to the provision is targeted as that which is necessary for the prevention and detection of uninsured driving. There are additional safeguards, in that subsections 2(b) and (c) further provide for regulations that can limit the purposes for which the police may be given access to the information and the onward disclosure of that information. The measure helps to tackle uninsured driving by giving motor insurance information to the police; such information is relevant to help the police to enforce that law. 
 Similarly, the provision complies with the Data Protection Act 1988, a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. While the Human Rights Act 1998 requires disclosures of data to comply with the data protection principles, exemptions from any of those principles that would otherwise prevent disclosure are permitted by virtue of section 35(1) where, as here, there is a legal obligation to make the disclosure. 
 I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but I wanted to set out the background to the provision before referring to the amendment.

John Bercow: The Minister is making a better job of accurately explaining the provision than the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston who made a ham-fisted attempt at doing so. Nevertheless, I am not absolutely clear about the matter and I should be grateful to receive clarification. [Interruption.] The sedentary chunterings of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston do not assist the considerations of the Committee at all, unlike those of the Minister. Will the Minister establish the circumstances in which disclosure would not take place?

Charles Clarke: I cannot foresee any circumstances in which disclosure would not take place, if required. Obviously, the measure is concerned with crime prevention and circumstances will have to be taken into account. However, I shall take advice on the matter before responding in detail to the hon. Gentleman's question.
 The hon. Member for Lichfield gave examples from other countries of the disc and asked to what extent that had been considered in the process. The ABI confirm that insurance is this country is attached to the driver, whereas on mainland Europe it is often attached to the vehicle, which is a significant distinction. An insurance windscreen sticker system is viable in continental Europe because cars can be driven on the owner's insurance policy with the owner's agreement. However, because the risks being accepted by the insurance company are greater, the ABI considers that that leads to higher motor insurance premiums than would otherwise be the case.
 In deciding how best to make insurance information more readily available to the police, the motor insurance industry considered advocating a windscreen sticker system along the lines that the hon. Member for Lichfield suggests, but it did not believe that that was viable or would be as effective as a computerised database. Police bulk access to a computerised database of insurance information will enable the police to be proactive in identifying uninsured vehicles and drivers, including making use of technology in a way that would not be possible if they were restricted to making visual inspections of windscreens. 
 I am aware that that touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield about whether the process is quicker than it might otherwise be, which has some substance.

Michael Fabricant: I am totally satisfied with the Minister's response to my question, but I should like to ask him a separate question about the bulk database. To what extent is he comfortable with the idea that smaller vehicle insurance companies may not be as quick to put data from their databases on to the bulk database as some of the others? As a consequence, police officers may assume innocent drivers to be breaking the law if the bulk database gives a nil response, suggesting that a driver is not insured, when he or she is.

Charles Clarke: I understand that the motor insurance database is tightly organised by the ABI, which brings the entire insurance industry together, and that the regulatory system would not permit the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes. I shall check, and I will tell him if that response is not accurate.

Michael Fabricant: Does that mean that all vehicle insurers are members of that association?

Charles Clarke: That is my understanding, but I am answering off the cuff. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I have misunderstood in any important respect. Certainly the overwhelming majority are—and I believe that they all are. I shall double check and let him know.
 The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham and his hon. Friends are designed to provide a more specific definition of the information required. The wording 
such information of a particular description
 in subsection (2)(a), which the hon. Member for Buckingham asked about, is designed to enable the Secretary of State to limit the obligation to disclose information to PITO to a subset of the relevant information required to be held under section 160(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It should not be necessary for all information on the insurance database to be given to the police, only the part of that information that is involved, which will enable the police to fight crime more effectively.

John Bercow: I do not want to labour the point, but specificity is exactly what is required in this case. I hope that, even if the Minister believes that our amendment is redundant or undesirable, he would agree that it would help him to explain the merits of the unamended clause if he could elucidate his case with an example. Will he give us an example of the sort of circumstance that he has in mind, in which our requirement would be too all-embracing and his wording would more appropriately define the particulars required in such a case?

Charles Clarke: I had intended to be helpful at the end of my explanation, but I shall say now what I intended to say then. The hon. Gentleman refers to the need to be more specific about the information to be disclosed in regulations. We have set out the parameters of that information under the definition of ``relevant information'', which is in the Bill and available for the Committee to scrutinise, and the regulations may specify only that information or a subset of it, not any additional information. The concession that I intended to make, and the assurance that I intended to give, is that the hon. Gentleman made some good points, and I am prepared to consider the definition before Report, to establish whether I could provide further clarification, and to think about whether further amendments might be tabled on Report relating to more specific information, as he suggests. He reasonably put the point that clarity is required about the total range of data on the database, compared to the subset that we would seek. I will consider that matter carefully and come back to it on Report.
 I say too, ``as advised'', as we like to say in this Committee, that the police are as concerned as anyone else that the database be complete, accurate and up to date. The fourth European Union motor insurance directive—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Buckingham going into a frenzy? The directive will require all insurers to notify details to the MID. If necessary, after consultation, arrangements can be made to omit details when a policy has expired only a short time before—a month or so before, for example. I want to be helpful and take the debate further, because I understand the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman makes his point.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister mentioned the European Union again. One advantage of European Union membership, I suppose, might be cross-border co-operation. Is there a plan—and does it fall under the ambit of the Bill—to include information on the bulk database about the many drivers who come here from member states and drive vehicles insured by European Union but not British insurance companies? To put it another way, is some form of co-operation planned to ensure internetworking between similar databases in Europe, so that if someone arrested for an offence in the United Kingdom was driving a Dutch vehicle, a British police officer could discover whether that vehicle was insured?

Charles Clarke: The co-operation to which the hon. Gentleman refers is being developed but is not there yet. That is the short answer. He is right to make the point, as cars are sometimes transported in and out of the country with different plates. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham really has gone into a frenzy now, perhaps because he sees that my officials are getting worried about what I am saying.

John Bercow: ``Frenzy'' seems to be the Minister's word of the week—perhaps he has recently discovered it. I am not in a frenzy; I was mildly amused—I apologise for my visible amusement—because the Minister was having some difficulty with his trousers.

Charles Clarke: As we were saying before our proceedings began, fashion is not one of my fortes, and neither is geography. I was having trouble with my belly button, rather than my trousers.

John Bercow: We love the Minister none the less. I have not scrutinised it, and have no desire to do so, but there appears to be nothing wrong with his belly button.

Charles Clarke: Yes, indeed—and I am not hiding an insect in it either.

Jonathan Sayeed: Let us return to the Bill.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Member for Lichfield is correct in thinking that we are developing the co-operation that he mentioned. The European Union motor insurance directive to which I referred will put in place a legal framework within which it can be achieved. That is one of the many examples of the benefits to this country of European Union membership, which would be jeopardised if the hon. Member for Buckingham were to have his way.
 I need to clarify my answer to the question about whether all insurance companies are members of the database; I was almost right, but not exactly right. All insurance companies are obliged to keep information pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1988. The clause would oblige such persons to disclose information to the police, so any insurance company not linked to the database must still comply with the clause. The police will have complete information that reflects the data available from all insurance companies.

Linda Gilroy: I have written to the Minister on this subject, and I would be grateful if he could clarify for me in writing the position of those who self-insure. Some concerns have been expressed as to whether and how that will fall within the ambit of the Bill.

Charles Clarke: I will clarify the matter for my hon. Friend in writing.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister clarify the answer he gave to my earlier question? He said that every insurance company was obliged to keep its own record and that those records must be available to the police.
 Does he mean the bulk database? If a driver were insured with a smaller insurance company that kept its own database, the police proactive interrogation of the bulk database would still come up negative. That would require the insurance company to give the police information some days later, perhaps of a written rather than an electronic nature, putting the driver to some inconvenience. Does the Minister understand the difference between the two possibilities?

Charles Clarke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I can best answer it by reading out the wording of the clause:
 The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for relevant information which is required to be kept by regulations made by virtue of section 160(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—
 that is the Act that requires the information to be kept— 
to be made available to the Police Information Technology Organisation for use by constables.
 The Bill goes on to state that regulations may 
require all such information or such information of a particular description to be made available to the Organisation.

Michael Fabricant: For the sake of clarity, will the Minister explain whether the Police Information Technology Organisation, rather than any third party, will maintain the bulk database? It may just be my ignorance, but people reading Hansard may ask the same question.

Charles Clarke: The bulk database is maintained by the insurance industry itself. PITO, which is controlled by police forces in conjunction with the Home Office, and whose governing board is made up of nominees from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and various other bodies, will get the information from the insurance database. From there, it can be made available to individual police forces.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for persevering, but I am still unclear as to why subsection (1) provides the answer to my initial question. If PITO does not operate the bulk database, how do we know that the information maintained by the insurance companies in one big database contains all the information to be found on the smaller databases of all the individual companies?

Charles Clarke: The information kept by the insurance companies is the information that they are required to keep by the Road Traffic Act 1988, so we know exactly what information every company keeps. The motor insurance industry database collects all that information together from all insurance companies in the way specified by law. The clause states that PITO can get access to that information. I am sorry if I am being unclear; if it would help the hon. Gentleman, I will pursue the matter in correspondence.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) asked about self-insurance. The current definition of ``relevant information'' in subsection (3) does not properly cover the point that she raises, which she has also raised in correspondence. That is partly why I was ready earlier to state that we were willing to consider the process again before Report, to get our definitions exactly right. That applies to the points raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield, too. There are points of substance on which we need to check that our wording is correct, which is why we are ready to introduce amendments on Report. 
 I hope that after those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

John Bercow: Yes, I am happy to do so, as I was pleased by the Minister's response, and, especially, by his commitment to come back to us on the question of specificity before Report. I assume that that means that some correspondence will take place between us—or at least that there will be a letter from him on the subject, which I can copy for my hon. Friends. On the strength of what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Taking a conveyance without authority:extension of prosecution time-limits

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 20, line 34, leave out `any' and insert `the'.
 The clause relates to the taking of a conveyance without authority and the extension of time limits for prosecution. The argument for our amendment can be extremely crisply made. Prosecutions can be initiated by only one person. The Bill states that the extended time period under clause 36 begins from 
the day on which sufficient
 knowledge ``to justify the proceedings'' is obtained by ``any person responsible''. This is a genuine drafting point—whether it is minor is a matter for debate—but it seems more sensible to us that the clause should read, ``the person responsible'', rather than ``any person responsible''. Surely an individual should make the decision.

Charles Clarke: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point was an illumination to me when I studied it. The phrase ``any person'' is used to ensure that Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors are unable to get round the six-month time limit by passing the file to another prosecutor. A CPS prosecutor who had sat on the file for six months could pass the file to another prosecutor and another six months could commence. The reference to ``any'' rather than ``the'' person responsible for deciding whether to commence prosecutions will prevent that from happening. The six months will start as soon as a prosecutor capable of taking the decision to prosecute has the evidence in his possession. If he fails to do so, no subsequent prosecution can be commenced. That legalistic response illuminated me, and that is the reason for using ``any'' rather than ``the''.

John Bercow: Although what the Minister said sounds eminently sensible, and I might well choose to withdraw the amendment, it is very unfortunate if that sort of excuse has been used at any stage. It would be quite improper for a public official to do so, as it would not be in the spirit of the legislation under which a matter was being considered.

Charles Clarke: I cannot give chapter and verse, but I, too, was surprised to discover that information. Obviously, making such an excuse would be bad practice, and as we are making the law it is important not to allow bad practice to be used to evade the law.

John Bercow: As I think that the Minister will accept, the purpose of our drafting amendment was to tighten the law and discover the reason for the Minister's preferred wording. The last thing that any of us wants inadvertently to do, is to weaken the provision by providing a get-out clause. I am not certain that my proposed wording would do that, but the Minister is. He is confident that his wording would not allow for such a get-out, and on the basis of his good intentions and the advice that he has taken, I am happy to accept his word on this occasion and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I was wondering about the purpose of clause 36. I believe that the prosecution has a general time limit of three years from the date of an offence taking place. Why, in the clause, has that been limited to six months? Was the aim to speed up the process and stop a queueing system within the prosecuting authority or the police, or was it meant to provide some form of protection to someone who had committed an offence? Why has the general principle of a three-year gap been breached by a change, in this instance, to six months?

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause extends the time for bringing prosecutions for unauthorised vehicle-taking—joy-riding—by amending the Theft Act 1968. It thereby extends the limit from six months after the offence to a maximum of three years, subject to the requirement that the prosecution be brought within six months of sufficient information coming to the attention of ``the'' or ``any'' any prosecutor. So-called joy-riders cause deep distress to their victims. They may be involved in accidents, and their offences are sometimes—some would say often—the gateway to more serious crime.
 At present, some people escape justice because, as the law stands, no charges may be brought more than six months after the offence was committed. We want to make prosecution possible, signalling that the offence is not to be taken lightly. The extended time limit also allows us to take account of technological advances, particularly DNA and fingerprinting. Such developments may allow evidence to come to light later than six months after the offence. 
 Those are the principal reasons why we wish to make the change. The Crown Prosecution Service requested the limit of three years, and there are precedents, such as section 146A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. That is why, with an offence for which it is not always easy to identify the offender, there should be more time to use the benefit of technological changes to help us to do so. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Funding of certain magistrates' courts' costsrelating to vehicle crime

Andrew Miller: I beg to move, amendment No. 51, in page 21, line 11, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

Jonathan Sayeed: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 52, in page 21, line 23, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

Andrew Miller: The purpose of the amendments, small though they are, is to ensure that money is recycled from the Lord Chancellor to the relevant authorities. Lines 12, 13 and 25 contain the phrase,
whole or any part of the relevant expenditure.
 There will be legitimate circumstances in which, however the process is operated, 100 per cent. of the ``claimed money'' would not be refunded, but legitimate and significant expenditures may be met by relevant authorities and my amendments are intended to preclude a payment of nil.

Anne McIntosh: For a number of reasons, I wish to say a few words in stringent opposition to the amendment. For the record, my constituency—indeed, the whole of North Yorkshire—has no pilot scheme. I make a plea to the Minister to consider amending the original formula. I will not advertise where it is, but one village has speed cameras at its entry and exit, but no film in them. Under the present formula, nowhere in North Yorkshire would qualify for film in the speed cameras. I heard that, on great authority—in fact, I shudder to say that I heard it from the chief constable of North Yorkshire—

Charles Clarke: I want to place on record my admiration for the chief constable of North Yorkshire, with whom I know that the hon. Lady has a good relationship. I have discussed these matters with him on occasion, and I respect his judgment. We listen to the Association of Chief Police Officers when developing such proposals.

Anne McIntosh: I join the Minister in admiration of the chief constable of North Yorkshire.

Michael Fabricant: I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to say how much he respects the judgment, at all times, of the chief constable of Staffordshire.

Jonathan Sayeed: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are listening to a speech by Miss McIntosh, not the Minister.

Anne McIntosh: I do not wish to be drawn into provocation. I would merely like to respond warmly to the Minister's remarks. I value the contact that hon. Members are making—in my case, with the current chief constable and his predecessor. That contact helps me to understand why the Bill, and especially the amendment under discussion, fails to achieve what it intends. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to extend the pilot scheme or amend the formula, so that all eligible villages in North Yorkshire have not just a speed camera but one with a film.
 I remind the Committee of my interest in the RAC Foundation for Motoring, and the benefits, which I have registered, of my membership of its public policy committee. Among motorists and motor cyclists, two powerful arguments are made against the amendment and the clause. The clause would extend an experiment, which is currently taking place in only 10 areas, allowing the police to hypothecate revenues from speed cameras. I am sure that the RAC would not object to my putting it on record that that sends out the wrong message to motorists and motor cyclists. Speed cameras were introduced to reinforce road safety, not to be a revenue-raising device. I want to lend my support to that point, which was made by the RAC. Motor cyclists would want to make the point that the Bill should be seen as a separate issue to what the clause and amendment are intended to achieve. Given the role of speed cameras in road safety, the intention behind the amendment and the clause is inappropriate.

Bob Russell: Is the object of the clause road safety or revenue-raising? If it is road safety, I support it and the amendments tabled to it.

Jonathan Sayeed: Order. The hon. Gentleman will find that that is the subject of the next group of amendments, not this group.

Charles Clarke: First, I want to place on the record, for the avoidance of doubt, my respect and admiration for the chief constable of Staffordshire and for his judgment on many matters, some of which I shall not share with the Committee.
 I hesitate to go beyond your ruling, Mr. Sayeed, about the subject of the debate. However, the purpose of speed limit and red light enforcement is to reduce death and injury on the roads. It is part of a road safety strategy. It may interest the Committee to know that it is too early to make a full assessment on the basis of the pilot areas—Strathclyde, Essex, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, South Wales, Cleveland and Thames Valley—but results already show significant advances. In terms of the reduction in personal injury accidents, Strathclyde is 22 per cent. down, Essex is 1 per cent. down, Nottingham is 6 per cent. down, Northamptonshire is 6 per cent. down, Lincolnshire is 12 per cent. down and Cleveland is 15 per cent down. Incidents in which people are killed or severely injured are 42 per cent. down in Strathclyde—an enormous reduction—4 per cent. down in Essex, 34 per cent. down in Nottingham, 15 per cent. down in Northamptonshire, 26 per cent. down in Lincolnshire, 5 per cent. down in Cleveland and 20 per cent. down in Thames Valley. Such reductions are significant. They are not conclusive because we have not yet concluded the pilot period, but they show a move in the right direction.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister comment on a letter by the Association of British Drivers, which stated:
 Unfortunately, the Speed Kills dogma...has the exact opposite effect.
 What are his views on that statement?

Charles Clarke: First, I do not understand that statement and, secondly, if I did understand it, I would disagree with it.
 I believe profoundly that speed kills. The most dramatic illustration of that is a fact: if a child is hit at 20 mph, the child has a 19 in 20 chance of survival. If a child is hit at 40 mph, the child has a one in 20 chance of survival. Such dramatic differences are unanswerable. 
 The amendment deals with the funding approach. The legal basis for the current pilots is the annual Appropriation Acts, which allow short-term spending on certain pilot schemes. To find a vehicle for funding such schemes was an achievement of my colleagues in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury. Although it is a short-term approach, we were pleased about it because the schemes are important. The precise purpose of the clause is to remove the reliance on those Appropriation Acts and to establish a clear statutory basis for enabling not only the pilot areas to which I have referred but every force area in the country, including north Yorkshire, to operate such schemes if, after proper assessment of the pilot scheme, we decide that the initial results are beneficial. However, we cannot operate the pilot schemes, which are essentially short- term in character, on the basis of the Appropriation Acts. We are looking for a legal change whereby such schemes can be run on a long-term basis nationally in the event that the pilot schemes are judged to have succeeded.

Anne McIntosh: Am I misunderstanding the argument? Would a national formula need to be amended to permit the speed cameras to carry films in North Yorkshire?

Charles Clarke: The position at the moment is that the way in which the Exchequer works—a way that was inherited from the evil Conservatives—means that money raised by such matters is sucked straight back into the Exchequer and cannot be recycled. My right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor agreed with the proposition made by the Home Office, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Lord Chancellor's Department that it would be far better for road safety reasons if the money were not simply sucked back into the Exchequer but reinvested in road safety measures such as more cameras, putting film in cameras, and so on. Their generous agreement to do that was predicated on the proposition that we should run pilots in a limited number of forces to see whether benefits would be accrued from such an approach. That was a major step forward.
 The pilot, which the Association of Chief Police Officers was keen to agree to—I include in my praise of chief constables, Ken Williams the chief constable of the Norfolk constabulary, who chairs the ACPO committee on the matter—was predicated on our need to change the law to create a proper legal basis for such a provision. The clause is meeting what the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) wants. It will establish a legal base for the system that will operate in North Yorkshire and elsewhere, provided that it is judged that the pilot succeeded in its road safety ambitions.

David Kidney: I would like to clarify the formula. Is the hon. Lady talking about the usual way in which the Government distribute money to police authorities throughout the country according to a national formula, after which time chief constables and the authorities then decide on their priorities? Perhaps the priorities in North Yorkshire do not extend to putting films in speed cameras.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. As always in such matters, we are trying to make money work to benefit the community as a whole. That is what is involved here. By raising a revenue chain from income that goes back into improved road safety arrangements—such as camera systems—we hope to establish a virtuous circle of continual improvement of enforcement of the legislation, based on the proposition that speed kills, and should be inhibited.

Anne McIntosh: I do not wish to labour the point, but it is appropriate to record that we do not have enough police officers in North Yorkshire. A better allocation of resources would have allowed us to put in more police officers and enable them to undertake traffic responsibilities in counties such as North Yorkshire, to carry out the additional responsibilities that they are given in the Bill.

Charles Clarke: I disagree quite profoundly. I understand the pleading for more police officers; it comes from every part of the country, for reasons that I appreciate. In the next hour or so, there will be a debate in the Chamber on those issues, and we all know the allegations that are made. On this subject, however, it is incontrovertible that the effective speed camera operation that we seek to encourage is a more effective way to enforce the law—and to reduce some burdens on the police—than to say that in every village in North Yorkshire, and everywhere else, there should be a police officer with a speed gun.

David Kidney: Surely it is a better use of resources to have a camera there 24 hours a day than to pay for three police officers to stand in the same spot checking speeds for 24 hours a day.

Charles Clarke: That is an incisive and correct observation. What we are doing will improve the enforcement of the laws of the land, to the benefit of society as a whole.
 On the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, the amendments would compel the Lord Chancellor to make payments to responsible authorities. As drafted, the subsections introduce a power for the Lord Chancellor to make payments to responsible authorities. That new power fills the gap in the financial arrangements that I have described between the appropriation orders that are used now and the new arrangements in the Bill. 
 At present, the Lord Chancellor has the power to pay up to 80 per cent. of the expenditure of responsible authorities in relation to magistrates courts. The balance is met by the responsible local authorities, with the aid of grant provided by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The new power would enable the Lord Chancellor to make payments to meet the full amount of the costs of the courts in dealing with offences recorded by speed or traffic cameras. 
 I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's purpose is to preclude a payment of nil—to use his words—and I should place on the record that we do not intend that there should be a payment of nil. It would not be appropriate, however, to require the Lord Chancellor to make payments. The existing funding arrangements for magistrates courts generally do not compel the Lord Chancellor to make payments, but empower him to do so; that is the spirit of the Bill. The relevant reference is section 57 of the Justices of the peace Act 1997; the new provisions have been drafted along similar lines. 
 I encourage my hon. Friend, now that he has heard the debate, to withdraw his amendment; the point that he makes, however, is well taken.

Michael Fabricant: Perhaps it will help his hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment if the Minister will tell us what undertakings he has received from the Lord Chancellor's Department, in relation to clause 37, that payments will be made? Clearly, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is worried in case no payments are made. At present, there is a degree of trust on the Minister's part that payments will be made. What undertakings has he received?

Charles Clarke: As the Committee knows, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are like the holy trinity, indivisible in all respects, and have no firm public commitments on such matters, but my noble, right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lord Chancellor's Department are committed to the project and to making the payments that I have described. There is a joint approach between the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Home Office, which is supported by the Treasury. The concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about one of the elements wanting to withdraw from the arrangements—and, in his phrase, bringing payment of nil—are not valid. All parts of the Government have agreed to work towards that end.

Bob Russell: If the cameras are successful, everybody obeys the law and, therefore, no fines are generated, will the shortfall be made up? If so, by whom—[Interruption.]

Charles Clarke: I must make one small technical point before I respond to that. The hon. Member for Lichfield, from a sedentary position, used the word ``film''. In fact, digital cameras are being used more and more, and some of the issues about film are not as clear as they were. To reassure the hon. Member for Vale of York, none of her constituents in North Yorkshire should rely on there being no film in the cameras when deciding at what speed they drive through the villages in her constituency.
 Were we to reach a universal position of absolute happiness, in which there was no speeding of any kind at any time, some administrative arrangements would be necessary. However, the savings to the state—in the national health service and in every other way—would be so enormous that, to use a phrase that resonates through our history, that would be a price worth paying. 
 To conclude on a minor point, it is possible that we should allow the DETR to pay money to crime reduction partnerships as opposed to specific agencies. We are considering whether it might be necessary to table an amendment later to address that. On that note, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Andrew Miller: The whole House would love to face the quandary posed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), which would be a wonderful step forward in reducing the 3,000 unnecessary deaths that occur on our roads each year. However, in the spirit of the response of my hon. Friend the Minister, I trust the matter to the current Lord Chancellor, who has been demonstrably co-operative throughout the pilot process. In the long term, there might be a Lord Chancellor in whom I did not have so much confidence, although I suspect that I may have retired by then. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 21, line 22,
 after `applies', insert `; 
or is expenditure incurred by a responsible authority in the provision of speed cameras in locations where there is a significant likelihood of the presence of road users (including pedestrians) who would be at risk from a vehicle driven at excess speed.'.

Jonathan Sayeed: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 78, in page 22, line 4, at end insert—
 `( ) Responsible authorities shall utilize payments made under this clause to install and improve mobile and fixed safety cameras to record and detect excess speed; and to place such devices in locations identified as being places where all road users including pedestrians are most at risk from excess speed.'.
 No. 79, in page 22, line 4, at end insert— 
 `( ) ''Relevant expenditure'' shall be used to ensure, so far as is practicable, that those offences referred to in subsection (5) are reduced and, in doing so, the responsible Authority shall take into account any information that they have identifying areas where those offences are more likely to be committed.'.
 No. 53, in page 22, line 6, at end insert— 
 `( ) The Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Secretary of State shall produce in 2003, and thereafter at such intervals as he shall think fit, a report outlining the extent of the provision of safety cameras, their financial implications and their impact upon casualty reduction; and such a report shall be laid before Parliament.'.

Andrew Miller: Reference was made at length, on Second Reading on 18 December, at columns 31 to 33, to the official Opposition's suspicion that the Government's proposal constituted a stealth tax. The hon. Member for Buckingham stated:
 We are also concerned to avoid yet another stealth tax from the Government.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 33.]
 In response to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), he continued: 
 One can only assume that Ministers are anxious to extract rich pickings from unsuspecting motorists in the form of heavy fines. In so far as that policy is by way of being a stealth tax, it does not commend itself to Her Majesty's official Opposition.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 35.]
 The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), in his response to the debate, took a considerably softer line, with which I have some sympathy. He dealt with how the money was precisely to be used, and, at column 112, on 18 December, set out his points of concern. He went on to say: 
 However, concerns have been expressed that such measures could introduce something of a stealth tax.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 112.]
 He was not saying that he believed it, but was reflecting the fact that the hon. Member for Buckingham seemed to believe it.

Anne McIntosh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that motorists rightly perceive those proposals—call them a stealth tax or not—as a revenue-raising device?

Andrew Miller: The hon. Lady will hear me develop my argument on this important clause. I do not think that the measure is a revenue-raising device in the context of the taxation of the nation in its entirety. Taxation goes into one pot and is redistributed through various complex mechanisms that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) understands far better than I. We can show motorists that the measure is sensible; in the long run, it will benefit them not simply as motorists but as citizens of the nation as a whole.
 Each death on the road has been estimated as costing the nation approximately £1 million. I am going to mention Europe again, which might cause problems. The European Federation of Road Traffic Victims has produced significant research that showed that the cost to nations across Europe was approximately £40 billion a year, which represents an extraordinary waste for the taxpayer. However, we should think, of the pain and suffering caused by the incidents that Members hear about in their constituencies—pain and suffering that is multiplied across Europe. 
 We are dealing with the biggest unmentioned issue of public health in this country. If we get the road safety strategy right, we can reduce that pain and suffering. As the chairman of the all-party group that supports the charity RoadPeace, I would welcome to our meetings hon. Members who have not yet faced a family who have been bereaved, or had a serious injury in their own families as the result of a road crash. The pain and suffering goes on for many years—it is not a flash in the pan that goes away tomorrow. 
 Through RoadPeace, we are dealing with the counselling of victims' families after crashes that occurred as long as 10 or 12 years ago. Yesterday, I had a lengthy meeting with colleagues in the Department of Health. We are considering the huge cost of supporting families in terms of the direct impact of the crash on individual members of the family, and the subsequent trauma suffered by other parts of the family. Those costs are enormous, and every small step that the nation, in co-operation with motoring organisations, takes to reduce them is important. 
 I agree with the tenor of the observation made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire on Second Reading. We must not allow the measure to be perceived as a simple mechanism that local authorities can identify as a nice little earner. That would be intolerable, because it would not command the support of the motorist. I am sure that the hon. Member for Vale of York would agree with that, as that was the spirit of her intervention. 
 The amendments have been drafted so that we can explore, with the Minister, whether we can strengthen the clause and get the balance right, so that authorities receiving moneys through the process do not see it as a nice little earner. We do not want them simply to use the moneys refunded to them or from other resources to scatter speed cameras liberally in places that they think will be the best earners. The cameras must be located in hot spots—to use another phrase employed by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. They must be put in places that have been identified as a risk to the community—by which I mean all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. 
 Significant areas of all our constituencies could benefit from such a policy. I have done a lot of work on the A540, where a significant number of deaths have taken place, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) knows well. There is a clear piece of dual carriageway with a gentle curve, but it has a hot spot at a point where oncoming traffic crosses into a side road. Such circumstances require the traffic to slow down. We can effect that by all sorts of mechanisms, some of which are more expensive than others. Major refurbishment of the road design is one approach; we could introduce a roundabout, or traffic lights, or simply reduce the speed limit from 60 mph. 
 All those mechanisms are worthy—as are speed cameras. I would expect a local authority to target that kind of location in response to the spirit of the clause, not to create a nice little earner but to reduce death and serious injury on the road. The legislation must be drafted in clear language that ensures that it is a road safety measure, as the Minister described it, not a tax-raising measure, as some Members of the Opposition believe it to be. The fact that it is a road safety measure needs reinforcing loudly. Because of the technical deficiencies of my drafting skills, the Minister may not be minded to accept the amendments as they are. However, I hope that he will put it on record, in disseminating information about the Bill, that the provisions must be used in the context of road safety, to reduce the number of awful tragedies that happen every year.

David Kidney: I speak in support of my amendment No. 53, which is grouped with my hon. Friend's amendments. I support his amendments, too, and his purpose, which is to find the right way within the scope of the Bill to reassure the House and the public at large that the proposals are a road safety measure, not a revenue-raising device. I declare a non-pecuniary interest: I co-chair PACTS, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, an all-party parliamentary group and a registered charity, whose purpose is to seek research-based solutions to obstacles to transport safety.
 The purpose of amendment No. 53 is to tack on to the end of clause 37 a requirement for the Lord Chancellor to make a report to Parliament. I will deal in a moment with why it should be the Lord Chancellor, when we have had two Ministers from two other Departments here throughout our deliberations. 
 This is the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, and the crimes that are addressed in clause 37 are speeding and also, although nobody has mentioned it, passing a red traffic light. It should be clear to people that no one will have to pay a fine because of any provision in clause 37, if they do not break the speed limit or disobey a red traffic light. 
 My final introductory point is that, as the hon. Member for Vale of York pointed out, police authorities do not always have as much money as they would like for local priorities. They would like more, and clause 37 is an attempt to wrest money from the Exchequer and give to police authorities to spend on local priorities. At present, all fines paid by all the lawbreakers covered by clause 37 go to the Exchequer. The Lord Chancellor has no discretion and no choice but to hand over the cash. The purpose of the clause is to allow him to give back some of the money to police and highway authorities to spend on local priorities. 
 To emphasise that it is a road safety issue, PACTS will be happy to give to anyone who would like them, details of research that someone called Hooke completed for the Home Office in 1996 about the early effects of the use of speed cameras in reducing speeds, and therefore casualties, on the roads. The report stated that over the period when the research was conducted there was a 28 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries in road collisions as a result of speed cameras reducing the speeds of vehicles passing through the areas concerned. 
 On Second Reading, I spoke of my experience in Staffordshire, where speed cameras have been used for three years, as a result of which there has been a 30 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries on the road. On some roads there have been spectacular reductions of up to 60 and 70 per cent. Bearing in mind that nationally, some 3,400 people die every year at present in road crashes, the possibility of shaving off more than 1,000 of those deaths every year is alluring. It would be a good day's work if what we did today brought about that result. 
 In Staffordshire, the local authority and the police have faced the allegation that they are only trying to raise more money, rather than trying to reduce casualties from road accidents. It has published openly the criteria according to which it decides where to locate speed cameras, so that the public see why cameras are put in one place rather than another. The criteria deal only with how to reduce casualties. In a recent assessment of that policy, and its success in being acceptable to the public, the local authority and the police found that the public accepted it in general, but had some quibbles about it not always being clear that they were breaking a speed limit, because road signs were not as clear as they should be, or it was not plain that there was a speed camera ahead, because it was hidden at the side of the road, where foliage had grown out and partly hidden it, or the markings on the road that the camera used to determine speed might have faded. Even now the authority is amending the criteria to make it clear that they want the cameras to be visible and the speed limit to be clearly shown. They want it to be obvious that there is a place where a speed camera will catch people who exceed the speed limit. It is adjusting the criteria to meet the genuine concerns of the public. That is commendable. 
 The Lord Chancellor is the means for passing over the money and should therefore be the person who is responsible for telling Parliament what happens to it. My amendment proposes that the Lord Chancellor should lay a report before Parliament, consulting with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the whole scheme, stating what happens to the money in terms of what safety cameras—that is, speed cameras and cameras at red traffic lights—have been bought, the results of putting them by the side of the road and the effect on casualties. In that way, the House and the public at large would be reassured that the money had been used for the right purpose and had had an impact on casualties. That would have been a good way of reassuring the public. I imagine the Lord Chancellor saying, ``It's a touch unfair, Kidney, for you to do this, because all I'm doing is passing over the money to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for road safety, and the Home Secretary, who is responsible for policing. Why lumber me with this responsibility?'' My answer is that the clause states that it is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility to dole out the money. Therefore, it is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility to tell us what he has done with it. 
 I would be happy to consider a better way if my hon. Friend the Minister is able to suggest one. I know that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has already issued guidance to local authorities and the police about the location of speed cameras. I commend the practice in Staffordshire and suggest that national guidance should follow that example. I hope that my amendment finds favour with the Minister.

Jonathan Sayeed: Before we continue, may I remind colleagues that we must complete our consideration of this group of amendments by 4 o'clock. I am anxious to allow time for the clause stand part debate. I should be grateful if remarks could be brief.

Bob Russell: That is precisely the point that I wish to make, Mr. Sayeed. I want to speak on clause stand part when we have finished with the amendments.

Charles Clarke: I shall try to be brief in the light of the comments made by the hon. Member for Colchester. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised the subject of the famous stealth tax. This is not a tax but a penalty for an offence. Drivers who keep to the speed limit will not be affected. Only those who break the law will be fined. It is important to distinguish between this and the general arguments about charges and taxes. This is a penalty for a criminal offence.
 Amendment No. 53 seeks to provide regular information. I fully support the intention behind the amendment—it is well made—and I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about the points concerned. He referred in his speech to the guidance that the DETR is producing on the appropriate siting of safety cameras and the fact that it will be updated as part of the implementation of the national roll-out. A comprehensive handbook is being produced for the police, local authorities and others who wish to form partnerships as part of the national roll-out. 
 Cameras have already been shown to have significant road safety benefits—I will not go through those arguments again—but an important part of the pilot scheme is to monitor their performance. When the results of the monitoring become available, they will be made available to the House. The final report on how the pilots have fared will be produced after March 2002, when they are due to end, and they will then be made publicly available. Even if national roll-out starts later this year, it is unlikely to be completed within 12 to 18 months. A report required by Parliament in 2003 will not give us a great deal of information. 
 We believe that there are enough systems in place to demonstrate the effectiveness of the scheme, and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford to consider withdrawing his amendment, because it would be burdensome to extend the scope of the clause in the way that he suggests. I can give him some undertakings. First, we will publish a report on the results of the pilots when we have them. Secondly, when national roll-out is substantially complete and has been working for a while, we will publish a further report to Parliament. Thirdly, I will discuss with my colleagues in the DETR and the Lord Chancellor's Department what form of regular reporting regime, whether through Select Committees or whatever other means, might be a good way of getting to the facts on the matter. 
 I cannot go all the way that my hon. Friend suggests in his amendment, but I can go some of the way. I hope that he will take that into account when he considers how to proceed with his amendment. 
 On amendments Nos. 77 to 79, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, we strongly support the intention behind the amendments, because it is vital that speed cameras are placed where they are likely to have the most benefit in terms of reducing collisions and the severity of collisions. Roads circular 1/92 states: 
 In developing strategies for deployment and in identifying individual sites, authorities will need to bear in mind that the ultimate objective is to maximise the road safety benefits which can be achieved in any given area.
 I will reinforce that point later. As I said, we intend to update the guidance, based on experience of camera operation, but it would be a mistake to be too prescriptive in legislation. There is a great deal of experience in local authorities and police forces of how best to deploy cameras, and it is important that a local judgment is made about where those cameras might be of most benefit to road safety. Local authorities and the police have at their fingertips all the data on casualties, which allows targeting of collision hot spots of the type described. That is why we should provide guidance and support, but not be overly prescriptive. 
 One example from one of the pilot areas—Northamptonshire—is of a head teacher requesting the police to enforce the speed limit outside the school by deploying a mobile camera unit for an hour when pupils are entering or leaving the premises. That is a perfectly legitimate use of cameras to relieve road safety anxiety and prevent accidents and casualties among a group of road users who are especially at risk. 
 On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press their amendments. I want to state categorically that, in all respects, the motivation behind the proposed legislation is road safety and the benefits that that brings to society.

Andrew Miller: In view of your observations, Mr. Sayeed, I shall be brief. There is undoubtedly evidence that speed cameras, cameras at junctions, and better warning signals about cameras cause people to reduce their speed. My hon. Friend the Minister has put it on the record that placement of cameras under the scheme must benefit road safety. That is the important point, which must be made loudly. I am sure that it will receive the support of most motorists, who realise that they are driving a tonne of steel, which is an extremely dangerous weapon if misused. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: My hon. Friends and I tabled amendment No. 88, which was not selected for debate. We therefore take the opportunity of this stand part debate to air our concerns. I shall not advise my hon. Friends to press the matter to a vote, although, depending on the response and reflections on the matter in the interim, we may be inclined to develop our arguments further on Report. We take a genuinely different and directly contrary view on the matter from that of the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).
 There are serious concerns, which we share, about a massive and indiscriminate increase in speed and traffic enforcement cameras around the country. It has been debated extensively in the media, among other places, and hon. Members will be aware that several campaigning newspapers—if I may deploy that term—have taken up the cudgels in opposition to what they regard as an undesirable development. The official Opposition oppose the widespread roll-out of speed cameras on all of our roads. Speed cameras should be sited sensibly to deter speeding on dangerous roads or on roads that encourage, by their construction, speed in excess of the limit. They should not be used as another source of stealth taxation.

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only should there not be a widespread roll-out of speed cameras but that there should be a wholesale review of speed limits, which in certain areas are too high or too low? Does he not find it strange that there is perhaps a tacit agreement by the Government that the speed limits on motorways are inappropriate, by virtue of the fact that there are no speed cameras on motorways, except where there are roadworks?

John Bercow: There are certainly arguments about speed limits and the case for a review thereof, and the extent to which, in practice as opposed to theory, the actual speed limit is not the guideline on the strength of which prosecutions are made. In practice, if a person is a few miles over the speed limit—I do not, of course, travel over the speed limit—he is relatively unlikely to be fined or prosecuted. If a person is many miles over the limit, he is more likely to be prosecuted. There is a degree of arbitrariness.
 In the United Kingdom there is, on average, one automatic speed camera for every 30 miles of road. Under the new proposals, they will be more frequent, and the police will be allowed to keep the profits from speed camera fines. We place safety at the heart of our transport policy, but whereas others take a different view, we do not believe in needless regulation of speed.

Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow: No I shall not, because there is little time left.
 Speed cameras were intended not to be a source of tax—we can re-examine the issue, perhaps on Report—but to prevent accidents and control excessive speed. A stretch of road may be safe, but also be particularly wide or straight. That may encourage people to speed and should be prevented by visible warnings of cameras. Drivers should be alerted to the presence of speed cameras, which should not be unduly hidden. [Laughter.] Certainly, speed cameras should not be used simply as a revenue collector. In some countries speed cameras are painted in bright colours or are highlighted by warning signs—a fact of which the hon. Members who are laughing are apparently ignorant. 
 There is a balance to be struck. There should be awareness of speed cameras, but they should not be unduly intrusive into the local life of the community. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of speed cameras. The number of random speeding convictions increased by 712,000 between 1985 and 1998. Of that, the main increase—about 443,000 convictions; on average about 89,000 a year—took place over five years from 1993 to 1998. 
Helen Jones rose—

John Bercow: The British Motorcyclists Federation has argued for the deletion of the clause. We, being very moderate and reasonable, are not going that far today. The federation says that the clause is based on the assumption that speed is the main cause of accidents. It believes that too much emphasis is placed on speeding as opposed to dangerous driving, and that the clause militates against improving standards.
Helen Jones rose—
 Mr. Bercow: It also argues that the police are over-zealous in prosecuting speeding offences because they are easier to take to court than offences of dangerous driving, and that the clause would reinforce that trend. 
 Now, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North is so anxious to favour us with her wisdom—I have the highest regard for the intelligent contributions that she normally offers in the House—I happily give way to her.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—eventually. His whole argument rests on the premise that people have something to fear from speed cameras, but law-abiding people have nothing to fear from them. How does he reconcile his attitude to speed cameras with the constant demand from the Opposition for more closed circuit television cameras?

John Bercow: There are other arguments relating to driving, which are of greater significance. Dangerous driving, as opposed to driving in excess of the speed limit, should not be ignored or downgraded by the general focus of the debate.
 There is also a real issue of cost and it would be massively expensive to have a universal or even a large-scale rollout of speed cameras throughout the country, despite the enthusiasm of some Labour Members. That is not a realistic proposition, even if it were a desirable one. For them to, deliberately or inadvertently, raise the expectation of such a prospect—when it is about as unrealisable as all the high-falutin' declarations and wild promises of Ministers— is supremely unwise. That is why we raised our concern. We are perfectly entitled to do so, and I make no apology for it.

Bob Russell: It seems hardly worth while starting. Given that the sitting is ending at 4 o'clock, I shall reserve my comments for when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I must put on the record how much I deplore the fact that some members of the Committee have hogged the time available and prevented others from speaking and that the hon. Member for Lichfield made a speech, left the Room, returned and started intervening. We are discussing a serious subject. We have not been given enough time to debate it. I have been given less than 60 seconds to make my point. I shall not even attempt to start to make it; I shall save my arguments for another time.

Charles Clarke: I shall explain why the clause should stand part of the Bill. We do not agree with the British Motorcyclists Federation. It is important to fight speeding. We do not accept that the measure is a stealth tax. It is a penalty for those who behave illegally and cause danger to the rest of society.
 It being Four o'clock, The Chairman put the Question necessary under the terms of the programme resolution to complete the business. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Adjourned till Tuesday 23 January at half-past Ten o'clock.